CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

SB-918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018; An Intersectionality Based Policy Analysis

A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Social Work

By

Cklara Moradian

May 2019 The graduate project of Cklara Moradian is approved:

______Dr. Hyun-Sun Park Date

______Dr. Jodi Brown Date

______Dr. Susan Love, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii Dedication

This project is dedicated to all the youth struggling to live and find meaning in a world that has not carved out a place for them. It is dedicated to all searching for belonging. I embarked on this journey with a spirit of compassion and in the hopes that a more accountable, inclusive, equitable, just world community is possible. I hold on to the steadfast belief that we can and must do better on a micro and macro level to empower young people to thrive. I am eternally grateful to my family, friends, and mentors who have and continue to support me in my own healing. I would not be where I am without the protective power of positive relationships. Thank you.

iii Table of Contents

Signature Page ii

Dedication iii

Abstract v

Introduction 1

Framework 20

Analysis 26

Conclusion 44

References 48

Appendix A: Diagram of Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory 59 Appendix B: Guiding principles of IBPA 60 Appendix C: Descriptive & transformative overarching questions of IBPA 61

iv

Abstract

SB-918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018; An Intersectionality Based Policy Analysis

By

Cklara Moradian

Master of Social Work

There are numerous frameworks for policy analysis that can guide investigators to assess the effectiveness of policies in various stages of the policy cycle. Social Workers concerned with social justice and equity must use innovative policy analysis toolkits to better understand the overt and covert policy objectives, underlying assumptions, and normative values imbedded in policy. One such tool is Intersectionality-Based Policy

Analysis (IBPA) Framework, presented in Hankivsky, 2012. This reflexive investigation utilizes IBPA to analyze the issue of youth experiencing houselessness to determine if the recently passed California SB-918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018 can solve youth houselessness in California. Using publicly available data, state and federal reports, and published studies, this paper grounds in intersectionality principles and answers five

IBPA questions. Youth houselessness is understood as a mechanism of systemic oppression; therefore, any meaningful policy must account for how multiply- marginalized groups are impacted. Amongst the conclusions of this investigation is that while this bill is a positive step towards youth specific homelessness services in

California, it lacks the necessary resources to meet its ambitious goals.

Keywords: Intersectionality, policy analysis, equity, homelessness, youth,

California, SB 918

v Introduction

On a cold January night in 2017, a national Point in Time (PIT) estimated count of “homelessness” in the United States revealed that we are facing an unprecedented crisis that has public health, economic, and human consequences. An estimated 553,742 people were experiencing

“homelessness,” with 35% completely unsheltered, an increase from previous counts (Henry, Watt, Rosenthal, Shivji, & Abt Associates, 2017). California is facing the nation’s largest increase since 2016 (Cabales, 2018). 2017 also marked the baseline for counting unaccompanied youth (under 25 years of age), which shined a light on the estimated 40,799 young people struggling with houselessness nationally. The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report

(AHAR) to Congress by The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) showed that while this crisis is widespread in rural and urban communities alike, some States, like California, are more impacted.

California accounts for 38% of the national total of youth experiencing houselessness (Henry et al., p. 46).

Gross Underestimation of the Issue

There are serious methodological concerns with PIT counts of

“homelessness” (Stanley, 2017) as they tend to be a gross underestimation of the scope of the problem. Stanley (2017) cites other studies, which “estimated that the annual number of homeless individuals is 2.5 to 10.2 times greater than can be obtained using a point in time count” (p. 8). This is especially true for youth, because youth

1 experiencing houselessness do not congregate where adults are, tend to be more mobile/transient, and/or may not have been counted due to narrow definitions of “homelessness” used by the HUD. According to a federal study, “4 million youth ages 13 through 25 experienced a form of homelessness over a 12-month period” (Fernandes-Alcantara, 2018, p.

Summary).

A more methodologically robust comprehensive study of youth experiencing houselessness conducted by Morton, Dworsky & Samuels

(2017) revealed that nationally 1 in 10 young adults or 3.5 million (ages

18-25) and 1 in 30 or 700,000 adolescent minors (13-17) have experienced some form of homelessness in a twelve-month period.

California youth are particularly impacted by this issue. Current PIT estimates suggest that on any given night 15,458 youth are experiencing houselessness in California (Henry et al., 2017). Again, this is an undercount, as evidenced by other reports, such as the fact that 1 in 9

CSU students are reporting housing instability (as cited in Au & Hyat,

2017) and Los Angeles Community College District 2016 Survey of

Student Basic Needs reveals that 19% of LACCD students identify as being “homeless” (Goldrick-Rab, Richardson, & Hernandez, 2017).

These numbers reveal a widespread pernicious crisis that has long- term consequences for healthy youth development. If our youth are our nation’s future, these numbers paint a bleak one worth addressing at every level of intervention (micro, mezzo, macro).

2 Definition of Terms

There is no single definition or definitive age used to capture the range, duration, acuity or scope of experiences that constitute “youth homelessness” (Fernandes- Alcantara, 2018). Different agencies, organizations, and legislative bodies define the terms differently, which makes an accurate count difficult. In the 2017 HUD’s first count of unaccompanied youth, they looked at “people under the age of 25 experiencing homelessness on their own” (Henry et al., 2017, p. 1).

HUD counted parenting youth under 24 separately from unaccompanied youth, but in this investigation, parenting youth under 25 are included in the discussion. The words “throwaway youth,” “homeless youth,”

“runaway youth,” “transient youth,” “unaccompanied youth,” “street youth” and in some instances “system youth” (referring to youth with prior contact with Child Welfare or Juvenile Systems) are all seen in the literature (Youth.gov., n.d.b).

The definition of “homelessness” is also differently defined, and this directly impacts who is counted and who is not. Depending on agency or legislative body, sheltered individuals living in unstable housing situations are not counted (Morton et al., 2017). This project defines “youth homelessness” as any youth experiencing housing instability, at immediate risk of losing housing, who is either unsheltered, or using temporary shelters, “couch surfing,” sleeping in places not meant for human habitation, and/or sleeping in cars, sheds, or

3 trap houses. Youth, in this project, is broadly defined as any unaccompanied young person (lacking parental, guardian or institutional care) between ages 13-25, aligned with Morton et al., 2017 and

California legislation (Jbaforyouth.org, 2018). This includes youth who have left home, been kicked out, or been removed from “homes,” or have aged out of foster care.

A Note on Terminology and Stigma

If the salient task of adolescence and young adulthood is to develop a sense of self inside a community of others, find meaning through education, work, and love (Rogers (2013), then for the youth experiencing houselessness, this task is upended by an uprooting of all that is safe, all that is certain. To be houseless is to then question ones worth and where one belongs in the world. This disorientation can lead to profound and prolonged sense of marginalization and loss that goes beyond material disadvantage. The stigma of “homelessness” can lead to a moral injury and a conceptualization of self that is warped by shame

(Farrugia, 2011a; Kidd, 2007). Though much of the cited causes of youth houselessness is structural, institutional, and the direct results of oppression, social inequities, and poverty (Embleton, Lee, Gunn, Ayuku

& Braitstein, 2016), in the narratives of youth experiencing houselessness, subjective conceptions of identity are marked by self- blame and internalized feelings of failure (Farrugia, 2011a; Heineman,

2010). Thus, the biopsychosocial-spiritual development of youth is

4 interrupted, not just by housing instability, but also by the label and stigma attached to it (Kidd, 2007).

To be labeled as “homeless” can be in itself traumatic due to the social rejection and criminalization that ensues. Kidd (2007) found that

“perceived stigma [had] a significant relationship with low self-esteem, loneliness, suicidal ideation, and feeling trapped” (p. 297). Youth experiencing “homelessness” are cast as rejects and dealt with pity and repulsion (Foster & Bernstein, 2008; Heineman, 2010). In interviews with youth living on the streets, they described other people’s perceptions of them as “overwhelmingly negative: they used terms such as lazy, bad kid, troublemaker, bum, piece of s—-, lowlife, scumbag, junkie, gangbanger, filthy scum, lowest of the low, worthless, and whore” (Foster & Bernstein, 2008, p. 4). For this reason, it is absolutely crucial to change our language around this issue. These young people are not “homeless youth” but rather “youth experiencing houselessness.”

Houselessness, which is an absence of safe and secure shelter, is not always the state of “homelessness,” which is a deeper lack of security and belonging (Wardhaugh, 1999). Young people may very well feel that they have a “home” (among peer groups, community of others in the streets), even if they are unsheltered. The phenomenology of “home” as tied to a contained location, a space, may not be shared across cultures and people (Angelova, 2010).

5 While this paper has thus far spoken of houselessness as “a loss,”

“an uprooting,” an interruption in normal development, and a disruption of healthy family relationships, for many young people who are experiencing houselessness, the state of housing instability is a continuation of generational trauma, a repeat of family history, a consequence of “home life.” For these youth, the concept of “home” and

“housing” may be detached from each other. For these youth especially, lack of shelter may not always be “homelessness,” but rather a norm they have learned to navigate (Foster & Bernstein, 2008). This distinction matters. Youth may define “home” differently from a geography, a location, a structure, or place, and instead may conceive of

“home” as a state of belonging and safety that they have found with others on the streets (Farrugia, 2011a; Foster & Bernstein, 2008).

Easthope (2004) notes:

while a person’s home is usually understood to be situated in space (and time), it is not the physical structure of a house or the natural and built environment of a neighbourhood or region that is understood to make a home. While homes may be located, it is not the location that is ‘home’. Instead, homes can be understood as ‘places’ that hold considerable social, psychological and emotive meaning for individuals and for groups (p. 135).

In light of the above analysis, it would be inaccurate to assume that houseless youth are “homeless.” The above quote illustrates reasons why youth who “age-out” of youth services and are then asked to go to adult shelters (servicing mostly middle aged chronic houseless individuals) have such a difficult time receiving the care they need and instead return to the streets (Foster & Bernstein, 2008). They are being asked to give

6 up their peer community (their home). This is not to say that “home” is simply an ideological construct with no relationship to place. Some scholars have made the distinction between “rooflessness” as distinctly different from “rootlessness” (Somerville, 1992). This analysis just reminds us that while providing housing is critical, we have to also create the conditions that lead to a sense of belonging and safety in these homes, so youth can hold on to their housing, and not rotate in a revolving door of houselessness.

The term “homelessness” comes with cultural, historic, and moral baggage or what Farrugia (2011b) calls “symbolic burden of homelessness” that further others and alienates people. In this investigation, unless referring to studies and official language of policy, where possible, the term “youth experiencing houselessness” will be used instead of “homeless youth.” While the distinction may seem a simple issue of semantics, “people first language” (first recognized by disability justice communities) impacts our attitudes and cultural norms and the respect and dignity we afford the people we serve (Texas

Council for Developmental Disabilities, n.d.). Our language shapes our policies and laws and has the power to shape how we relate to others.

Causes of the Problem

Youth experiencing houselessness is a complex issue with individual and structural causes. It can be viewed as a political and moral failure, a serious public health concern, and a symptom of

7 systemic mismanagement of the county’s resources and priorities. It can be seen as a direct consequence of our economic system and the lack of adequate social safety nets that can provide basic needs for everyone despite abundant wealth (Jimenez, Pasztor, Chambers & Fujii, 2014).

Looking at the broader issue of “homelessness” in America, lack of affordable housing in larger cities (Fessler, 2017), income inequality, and systemic barriers to educational attainment and class mobility

(Adams et al., 2013) are all causes of houselessness. Some scholars argue that homelessness and the stigma attached to it is a direct result of capitalism (Belcher & Deforge, 2012). It is therefore critical that this issue is addressed on multiple levels of micro, mezzo, and macro.

This project looks beyond individual causes of this social issues and instead scrutinizes system failures. For the purposes of this investigation, lack of housing will be conceptualized as a health equity issue because houselessness has direct public health implications.

Impact of the Crisis

Youth who experience houselessness are five times more likely to become adults who are houseless (SB 918 Fact Sheet, 2018). The longer someone goes without housing stability, the more difficult it is to reach them and help them get on a path towards self-sufficiency and self- actualization. Youth are at a critical age in their development. There is the risk of normalization of and acculturation to the hardship and trauma that accompanies houselessness. Participation in the underground

8 economy, such as survival sex, leads to further marginalization. Youth experiencing houselessness are at much higher risk for sexual exploitation, intimate partner violence, are at higher risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, have higher rates of early unplanned pregnancy, and suffer chronic mental and physical health conditions (Foster & Bernstein, 2008; Morton et al., 2017). The presence of psychiatric disorders in youth experiencing houselessness is twice as high as their housed peers (California SB918, 2018).

There is a greater risk of suicide and suicide attempts in populations experiencing houselessness than the general population.

Some studies have put this risk of suicide at ten times higher for houseless individuals (as cited in Poe, 2017). Adolescents and young adults in the general populations are already at greater risk for suicidality. Houselessness puts them at even greater risk. For LGBTQ youth experiencing houselessness, the risk is a magnitude higher as they are twice as likely to die by suicide than their heterosexual peers who are also houseless (as cited in Poet, 2017). Prevalence of substance use in youth experiencing houselessness is put as high as 70-90% (California

SB918, 2018).

In addition to psychological, physical, social costs, there are also economic costs to youth experiencing houselessness, which is associated with the need for higher levels of care, and costlier social services, such as emergency room use and law enforcement involvement.

9 Grounding in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Adolescent development and youth related social issues can be looked at from various models, but youth houselessness and how it interacts with multiple systems is complex and needs a comprehensive approach. Therefore, understanding the challenges faced by this cohort from an Ecological Development Model is crucial. Youth experiencing houselessness appears to be related to both external social factors

(housing trends, oppression) and internal factors (psychological vulnerabilities, trauma, family breakdown). Research on other adolescent risk behaviors cite “a combination of interpersonal and intrapersonal variables” (Tatnell, Kelada, Hasking, & Martin, 2013, p.

885). The transactional relationship between biological vulnerability and unsupportive family/social dynamics are salient risk factors.

Conceptualizing this issue from Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological

Systems Theory requires looking at the microsystem (individual young person’s biology, home life, and family dynamic, school and peers), the mesosystem (the interaction between family and school and neighborhood, community violence), the exosystem (the role of media depictions of young people and the tools young people are given to cope with distress), the macrosystem (cultural norms and values/attitudes, policy and laws, systemic and institutional oppression, chronic invalidation in the forms of ableism, adultism, classism, heterosexism, cisgenderism, racism, sexism, other -isms). Furthermore, since age,

10 socio-historic events, such as recessions and economic downturns, impact youth houselessness trends, Bronfenbrenner’s Chronosystem also needs to be looked at (Rogers, 2013). See Appendix A for a diagram of the Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory model.

The Ecological Model looks at the “interactions and exchanges that occur between people and their environments” (Rogers, 2013, p.

45). This model helps stakeholders, policymakers, and practitioners look for interventions to youth experiencing houselessness that go beyond individual cases. Interventions need to tackle the complexities of systems. Microsystems and the individual development is impacted by

Macrosystems, which includes our laws, policy, cultural myths. Ayyash-

Abdo (2002), looking at the issue of teen suicide from the Ecological

Model, writes that grounding in this theory will “encourage the active collaboration of parents, peers, teachers, school administrators, and mental health professionals in the helping process” (p. 470). A similar approach is needed to tackle youth experiencing houselessness.

In the diagram of Bronfenbrenner Systems Theory (Appendix A),

Macrosystems engulf all other systems. Macrosystems impact individual and community well-being. This is why public policy matters so much.

As Torjman (2005) writes: “We literally eat, drink and breathe public policy…. [it] affects us both profoundly and pervasively. It influences virtually every aspect of our lives” (p. 1). It is in this spirit that this investigation focuses on policy response to youth experiencing

11 houselessness rather than individual or community response, with the understanding that all levels are impacted by policy and can be enhanced or hindered by our policy implementation.

The Need for Coordinated Youth Specific Services

Adolescence and young adulthood is a time of notable change in the physiology and psychology of human development. Beginning at age

10-12 and lasting typically until the ages of 18-25 (Rogers, 2013), this period can be difficult for individuals going through it and for families and communities grappling with how to best support its youth. This age is marked by numerous social and biological milestones, which present opportunities to both thrive and struggle. Cognitive development becomes more complex and moral development takes a clearer shape

(Rogers, 2013). It is also a time for greater interpersonal intimacy and peer interactions and risk-taking behaviors. Precisely because of all the shifts and changes, challenging behaviors and symptomology can first present itself during this time. Adolescents are at elevated risk for certain disorders (such as Eating Disorder) and health concerns (substance abuse). Youth experiencing houselessness may not have had the healthy secure attachments and stability to have learned skills to launch them into successful adulthood (Heineman, 2010). Understanding the attachment trauma of youth experiencing houselessness is crucial for developing appropriate trauma-informed services for youth. Our policies need to reflect our knowledge about youth development.

12 It is generally understood that the needs of young people experiencing houselessness are different from chronically houseless adults. While both groups need adequate attention and resources, they cannot be lumped into the same category, as interventions need to be developmentally appropriate for youth. Many young people do not feel safe in shelters designated for the general houseless population. They are often further victimized in these settings and would rather stay out in the streets (Foster & Bernstein, 2008). Early experiences with neglectful caregivers and the need for self-reliance may have led to deep distrust of adults and service providers (Heineman, 2010).

Studies recommend early intervention, low barrier services, and coordinated responses across agencies and providers that are based on a

Housing First models (California Senate Democrats, 2017). It is important to continue to wrap the young person in supportive services for a duration that is longer than those designated for adults (California

Senate Democrats, 2017). However, as of early 2018, only 20 out of the

58 California Counties had youth specific services (SB 918 Fact Sheet,

2018). Interventions need to be holistic, comprehensive, and systemic.

They also need to be adequately funded and resourced to make an impact. While some cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco have tried to establish youth specific services, rural areas tend to be service deserts.

13 A statewide coordinated effort is needed to address this issue. This is why statewide policy mandating youth specific services is critical.

Until 2018, efforts were fragmented and lacked uniformity across counties. For example, California’s Department of Housing and

Community Development, Office of Emergency Services, Department of Social Services, counties, and cities all were involved in addressing the needs of youth experiencing houselessness, but none were in charge of oversight and coordination of this crisis, which is the gap Califorinia

SB 918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018 is supposed to fill.

Lessons from communities who have ended houselessness for other populations (such a veterans) show that efforts need to be systemic, sustainable, and coordinated with all stakeholders at the table

(United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2017).

Prior to this bill, California had no clear strategy, roadmap, or plan to address youth experiencing houselessness. From both a practical and public health perspective, SB-918 is a long-overdue and much needed legislation. However, whether it can meet the demands of this complex issue remains unknown as implementation and evaluation of it is in its infancy. Predictions are speculative as the success of the bill remains in the hands of program developers at county levels.

Policy Analysis as a Tool to Advance Social Justice

Jimenez, Pasztor, Chambers & Fujii (2014) write that systemic policy analysis by social workers can be a powerful tool to advance

14 social justice, for it allows for an in-depth investigation into both the intended and unintended policy objectives and consequences of enacted laws and regulations that impact people social workers serve.

Considering the all-encompassing role policy plays in all of our lives, policy analysis that can uncover alternative solutions to social issues and move us towards greater equity is an important social justice endeavor. Robust policy analysis gives stakeholders, lawmakers, and interest groups a roadmap to understand, review, and evaluate policy at different stages of a policy’s lifecycle. Policy analysis can inform the various stages of the “policy wheel,” such as the “(1) policy formulation,

(2) policy implementation, (3) policy evaluation, and (4) policy modification” (Seavey, Aytur & McGrath, 2014, p. 3). NASW Code of

Ethics (2017) has enshrined political involvement, including advocacy in policy and legislation, as part of Social Work responsibilities. Engaging in policy analysis is one way to embark on this mandate.

Karger and Stoesz (2008) write that effective policy analysis must take into account historical background, description of the problem that necessitated the policy, and review what has or has not worked in the past to better inform policy recommendation towards target populations.

Furthermore, policy analysis must look at the social, political, economic, administrative feasibility of proposed policy. Jimenez et al., (2014), in their policy analysis framework, pay close attention to budget allocations, distribution of material resources, and changes in

15 distribution of power as markers of a comprehensive policy analysis.

However, existing policy analysis toolkits are not equally equipped to lead to answers to social problems that are complex and deeply embedded in historic and institutional forms of oppression.

Gaps in Traditional Policy Analysis

Not all policy analysis frameworks contain social justice and anti- oppressive ideology or lead to socially just outcomes. In fact, traditionally, the field of policy making and by extension policy analysis, has been devout of a true interrogation of power and privilege inherent in political institutions (Hankivsky, 2012). Policy is not just the passage of laws and regulations but also the process by which stakeholders come together and the interactions of these stakeholders with the legal mechanisms that have the power to pass laws.

Policy and its process contain normative values of our social contract. Most policies are based on cultural myths and narratives of dominant groups that shape who is targeted by policy, who and how people are served, and who is left behind. Historically, policy in the

United States has been weaponized to legalize and institutionalize oppression (as cited in Rothenberg, 2014). How each society organizes its social welfare programs, how we regulate and police our society, are all revealed in our policy actions. Policy is a good place to look to see who we deem worthy of goods, services, and protections (Seavey et al.,

2014). Yet, most policy analysis frameworks pay little to no attention to

16 the process of policy making and these normative values contained in it.

In the field of health public policy, traditional policy analysis has focused on efficiency, feasibility, effectiveness, and costs, rather than on power and privileges and differential impact of policy on populations

(Hankivsky, 2012). Furthermore, traditional policy analysis frameworks claim to be descriptive and objective/ “value-free,” rather than reflexive and transformative (Hankivsky, 2012; Kanenberg, 2013). Karger and

Stoesz (2008) note that in reality most policy analysis is subjective. As many scholars have pointed out, there is no inherently neutral or objective academic/research project (Brown & Strega, 2015). Policy analysis, like any other research methodology, is value laden. Without a conscious and deliberate effort to name the forces of domination and subordination, including a reflexive analysis of the investigators own positionality, policy analysis can become yet another exercise of power over marginalized groups.

Towards Anti-oppressive Policy Analysis

In recent decades, new theories of policy analysis have directly challenged the aforementioned issues. There is a growing number of scholars that argue that the effectiveness of policy should be measured by how much it advances social justice and equity (as cited in

Hankivsky, 2012). Feminist, Black, and Indigenous scholars moved the field of policy analysis towards more anti-oppressive liberatory models of research by integrating marginalized voices and using more

17 participatory methodologies (Hankivsky, 2012). Existing policy toolkits were re-examined to determine not just what role policy was playing in our society but also what and how policy ought to function (Hankivsky,

2012). As the famous disability rights slogan states: “Nothing About Us

Without Us” (Charlton, 2011), which is the spirit of involving people impacted by policy in the policy making process at every stage of the policy cycle. Furthermore, these thinkers challenged the idea of the

“objective researcher” and demanded candid conversations through reflexive critical thought.

This project attempts to interrupt oppressive forms of engaging in policy issues by employing an Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis

(IBPA) Framework put forth by Hankivsky, 2012 (discussed in detail in chapter 2).

Aims and objectives

This investigation’s aims and objectives are twofold: 1) To engage with the issue of youth experiencing houselessness from an anti- oppressive model of analysis by utilizing a modified Intersectionality-

Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) Framework; 2) Using this framework, to determine if California’s SB-918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018 can solve

California's crisis of youth experiencing houselessness. In this paper, the issue of youth experiencing houselessness is understood as a mechanism of oppression; therefore, any meaningful policy solutions must account for how multiply- marginalized groups are impacted and mandate

18 systemic corrections. Using publicly available data, state and federal reports, and published studies on this issue, as well as newspaper articles and interest group websites, this investigation aims to provide answers to whether SB-918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018 is an adequate path towards meeting the goal of ending youth houselessness in California.

The shortcomings of this policy analysis are discussed in the last chapter.

19 Framework

This project uses a modified version of Intersectionality-Based

Policy Analysis (IBPA) Framework put forth by Hankivsky (2012). The framework is rooted in the work of Black, Indigenous, Feminist thought,

Critical Race Theory, and later Queer and Disability studies, notably the work of Crenshaw (1989; n.d) and is meant to aid policy analysists to better operationalize “equity” in public health policy. “IBPA provides a new and effective method for understanding the varied equity-relevant implications of policy and for promoting equity-based improvements and social justice within an increasingly diverse and complex population base” (Hankivsky, 2012, p. 33).

Intersectionality has proliferated into most social science fields including Social Work. While the theory is differently defined and has taken on varied meanings, Hankivsky et al., (2014) note that this theory is a paradigm, a set of tenants that can be crudely summarized as the following: social categories of race, gender, ethnicity, ability, sexuality etc. are socially constructed, fluid, and dynamic; our lives cannot be reduced to single categories and cannot be understood by prioritizing one category over another; we do not experience the world in category silos; social locations are shaped by the interaction of power, time, and place; social justice and equity are central to this paradigm. Rather than looking at issues and discrimination from a single issue and single

20 identity prism, we account for the fact that people occupy membership in various groups and are impacted differently depending on their context.

Intersectionality-informed public health policy analysis ask that we go beyond single issue thinking and/or simply making a laundry list of social determinants of health and instead look for locations of power and privilege and their interactions with systems of oppression and marginalization. Within this framework, there is also room for an examination of resilience and resistance to systems of oppression, not just the negative impacts of oppression. In this sense, Intersectionality-

Based Policy Analysis should be strengths-based rather than just an examination of deficiencies. It is more than a critique.

The IBPA Framework has two core components: 1) a set of 6 guiding principles (Appendix B), and 2) a list of 12 questions (and sub- questions) (Appendix C) to guide the analysis. “The guiding principles are intended to ground the 12 key questions, including their supporting sub-questions, in order to ensure that each is asked and answered in a way that is consistent with an intersectionality-informed analysis”

(Hankivsky et al., 2014, p. 3).

The six guiding principles of IBPA as conceived by Hankivsky

(2012) are summarized below:

Intersecting Categories. Policy analysis should not privilege any one single identity category over others. The solution is not an additive approach (e.g. race + gender + ability etc.). Instead, identities are

21 complex, and the interaction of these different categories create unique positionalities that inform experiences.

Multi-level Analysis. Micro, Mezzo, and Macro levels are all important for an IBPA Framework. “Attending to this multi-level dimension of intersectionality also requires addressing processes of inequity and differentiation across levels of structure, identity and representation” (as cited in Hankivsky, 2012, p. 35).

Power. Power, in all its forms (overt, covert), institutions and systems of power, and locations of power, and the way power is tied to and interacts with knowledge and experience are central to an

Intersectionality-Based Analysis. It is understood that people can simultaneously experience both power and oppression in different contexts. “Within an IBPA, the focus is not just on domination or marginalization, but on the intersecting processes by which power and inequity are produced, reproduced and actively resisted” (as cited in

Hankivsky, 2012, p. 35).

Reflexivity. A faithful effort is made to conduct a critical analysis and interrogation of “the subjective self” and the power and privileges held on a micro level. One’s relationship to power and policy as researcher and investigator is central to this core tenant. This also means moving away from seeing oneself as “a policy expert” and instead critically reflecting on one’s relationship to systems and practices that

22 perpetuate oppression. The analysis incorporates the first person subjective “I” in the discussion.

Time and Space. Power, privilege, and disadvantage shift over time and space. When and where people are situated impacts their understanding of the world and their place in it. Historic analysis is also included. Intersectionality-Based Analysis emphasizes the importance of time and space and the role culture and history plays in policy formulations, implementation, and evaluation.

Diverse Knowledges. A sincere effort is made to include voices that are historically marginalized, especially in policy. Intersectionality-

Based Analysis considers a wide range of data as evidence, including qualitative and quantitative data, as well as questions how power influences what is considered “real” or “legitimate” knowledge when looking for evidence.

Social Justice. An emphasis is put on redistribution of resources/goods and processes. Challenging inequities and systemic disadvantage are central to Intersectionality-Based Analysis.

Equity. Close attention to and an interest in issues of fairness are central to Intersectionality-Based Analysis. Equity in this analysis goes beyond just “equality,” but is rather concerned with how public policy promotes social systems’ role in hindering or advancing groups based on intersecting identities.

23 IBPA’s 12 questions (and corresponding sub-questions) are divided between descriptive and transformative subgroups (Hankivsky,

2012). The descriptive questions are meant to generate critical background information on the policy in question. The key is to investigate the underlying assumptions in the way policy problems are formulated and how these assumptions then lead the conversation about people. The second set of transformative questions are meant to generate equity-based policy solutions. “Their combined effect is intended to expand and transform the ways in which policy problems and processes are understood and critically analyzed in order to ensure fine-tuned and equitable policy recommendations and responses” (Hankivsky, 2012, p.

34).

Developers of this framework note that these questions are not prescriptive but a roadmap for analysts. Flexibility is a feature of IBPA.

As long as the analysis is rooted in the guiding principles, analysts can modify, skip, or add to questions to better fit the policy under investigation and tailor questions to the life-cycle of the policy.

For the purposes of this paper, only 5 of the questions and some of their corresponding sub-questions are answered in analysis section of this investigation (3 descriptive and 2 transformative). IBPA can be done at any point in the cycle of a policy. SB-918 is in its infancy of implementation; therefore, questions that require passage of time and

24 formal evaluation of the policy implementation phase were not chosen for this investigation.

For this project, in order to evaluate whether SB-918 is going to meaningfully address the social justice issue of youth experiencing houselessness, special consideration will be given to who is benefiting and who is being left behind by the way the problem is formulated and the response is mandated.

Hankivsky (2012) write that analysts employing IBPA are

“strongly encouraged” to start their investigation with the first core question in order to “help inform their use of the Framework and position the knowledge, values and experiences they bring to their analysis” (p. 34). This recommendation has been honored.

25 Analysis

This modified IBPA (Hankivsky, 2012) of SB-918 has a limited scope and will answer five questions and some of their corresponding sub-questions (3 descriptive and 2 transformative). This analysis will focus on examining both the issue of youth experiencing houselessness and the extent to which SB-918 aligns with the guiding principles of IBPA. It is hypothesized that the more aligned the bill is with intersectionality tenants, the more likely the bill will be in reaching its overarching goal of ending youth experiencing houselessness. Drawing from a combination of public documents, federal and state-wide reports, policy papers and fact sheets, as well as the direct language of the bill, this paper will examine the strengths and limitations of SB-918. The effectiveness of the policy cannot be directly determined at this time as it has not yet been fully implemented; however, the policy is compared to research recommendations made in addressing the issue of youth experiencing houselessness

(California Coalition for Youth, 2018b; Keuroghlian et al., 2014; Morton et al., 2017;

Whitbeck, Lazoritz, Crawford, & Hautala, 2016).

Descriptive IBPA Question 1

1. What knowledge, values and experiences do you bring to this area of policy analysis? • What are your personal values, experiences, interests, beliefs and political commitments? • How do these personal experiences relate to social and structural locations and processes (e.g., gender, ‘race’ and ethnicity, socio-economic status, sexuality, gender expression and age; patriarchy, colonialism, capitalism, racism and heterosexism) in this policy area?

Traditional policy analysis is typically conducted by legislative members and lobbyists/ Think Tank groups, rather than by the people impacted by policies themselves, people formerly impacted, or even by those working directly with impacted

26 groups. This issue is especially true in the area of “homelessness” and homeless services. “Experts” are always talking about and for rather than to individuals experiencing houselessness. Farrugia & Gerrard (2016) note:

the act of naming, identifying, describing, counting and measuring the disadvantaged, poor or marginalised ‘other’ reveals much about normative understandings and assumptions, about what it is to be ‘mainstream’, ‘successful’, ‘typical’, and acts of recognition within academic research create power relationships between academic subjects and research objects (p. 268).

This is part of a larger problem of political marginalization and disenfranchisement, but it also stems from the fact that the credibility of oppressed groups to partake in knowledge production is questioned in mainstream policy work. Epistemic oppression is tied to social and political oppression. From a traditional point of view, the idea that youth experiencing houselessness can be generative forces in their own fates is suspect in the field of policy. This discreditation of both agency and legitimacy strips them of their dignity. Oppressed groups (in this case people experiencing houselessness), which are often targets of social welfare and health policies, are not seen as generators of

“legitimate knowledge” in what some theorists call systemic “epistemic exclusion”

(Dotson, 2014). The epistemic credibility afforded to academics, researchers, or lawmaker in the field of “homelessness,” but especially homelessness policy, is disproportionately higher than the credibility afforded to young people experiencing houselessness first hand. Who can and should generate and identify policy solutions to this problem? Even in the field of Social Work, traditionally and historically, dominant groups, mainly white men, have been primary policy analysists (Mcphail, 2003). One notable exception is the California Homeless Youth Project (Foster & Bernstein, 2008), which documented qualitative data on youth voices and their policy recommendations.

27 This work shifts us towards a more inclusive epistemology and is a radical departure from previous investigations into the issue. Centering the voices of people most impacted by policy needs to be the first step in policy analysis that has social justice aims. Even the recognition that lived experience is real and legitimate “data” in policy analysis is a paradigm shift endorsed by IBPA.

As an investigator, researcher, future social worker, as well as someone with first-hand experience of housing instability, I am in the unique position of both power and privilege and of historic marginalization and erasure. The very act of producing a policy analysis on an issue that I have tangible intimate knowledge about is a radical act of resistance against epistemic exclusion. As Hankivsky (2012) guiding principles of

“Time and Space” point out, humans move in and out of positions of oppression and power. My voice today is amplified. I have a platform to generate knowledge in a way that I did not have six years ago as an unstably houses young adult sleeping in my car.

This duality of experience, of being at once someone with little to no power to change policies that impacted me, and now an adult tasked with writing as a policy analyst, is both empowering and disorienting. My lived experience is both a source of shame and of pride, but it is also my most powerful “data point” and entry into the issue of youth experiencing houselessness.

Policy analysis, like other forms of discourse, is not a neutral endeavor and it is not an accident that oppressed groups have been marginalized from this field. Power and knowledge are inextricably linked (Foucault, 1980). The “regime of truth”

(Foucault in Rainbow, 1991) that reins the policy world is devout of the voices it reins over. Political disenfranchisement removes policy targets from participating in

28 conversations and analysis of policies that impact them directly, which then further perpetuates oppression. It can be argued that the field of Policy Analysis as it was traditionally practiced was not a tool for social justice but rather one more way oppressed groups were marginalized.

My lived experiences have been the most visceral ways I have gained knowledge about the world. It is perhaps my most genuine path to understanding and empathy. As Audre Lorde (as cited in Hall, 2004) writes: “Our feelings are our most genuine paths to knowledge” (p. 91). However, this knowledge is now augmented by master’s level social work education, youth specific evidence-based trainings at a leading pediatric institution, and internship at one of the largest mental health programs in the United States. My relationship to and with power has changed, from a place of powerlessness, to one who can gatekeep or exercise power over others. This relationship to power is fraught with ambivalence and requires responsibility. Early on in my professional career, I was a Youth Enrichment Program Leader at Hayward

Unified School District, where I worked directly with adolescents of color labeled as

“at-risk youth.” I saw the multi-layered systemic issues that put youth at risk while they were being stigmatized. This experience inspired my path to work with multiply marginalized youth within large systems, but it also made me aware of my own privileges as a light-skinned documented cisgender individual who is considered

“articulate.” Depending on situation and time and place, I can pass as abled, heteronormative, and “normal.” The erasure of my refugee, queer, and disabled identities (though painful and the source of psychological distress) afforded me the passage and safety to navigate oppressive systems of social services and mental health

29 services with more ease, giving me a pathway to exit housing instability in a way that is not open to most youth experiencing houselessness on the streets. The fact that I was never policed is not lost on me. It is with this knowledge, and in light of this, that I embarked on understanding policy from an IBPA Framework.

To more directly answer the posited question of my political commitments, anti- oppressive liberatory-model clinical theory and praxis are at the core of my work as a social worker and my broader political agenda as a policy investigator. This work is not possible without a continuous humble acknowledgement that my experience of housing instability as a young person is at once emblematic and unique, but it certainly does not represent the range and acuity of the experiences of youth who are struggling with houselessness today.

Peshkin (1988) writes: “...one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed” (p.17). I embarked on this journey of learning about youth houselessness, not from an outside “objective” stance, but from an intimate investigation of the self as recognized in the other. IBPA asks that we acknowledge how and when we embody access to power & privileges, and in this case protective factors, that may not have been or may never be available to the young people targeted by SB-918.

Descriptive IBPA Question 2

What is the policy ‘problem’ under consideration? • What assumptions (e.g., beliefs about what causes the problem and which population(s) is/are most affected) underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?

Farrugia & Gerrard (2016) write that most “homelessness research” fall into three categories: ‘sin talk’, ‘sick talk’ and ‘system talk’, so depending on the ideology of the researchers and their theoretical framework, homelessness is either caused by

30 delinquency/moral failure of the individual, pathology, or systems failure, with the former two being more closely studied and scrutinized. Most young people experiencing houselessness report rejection or discrimination (especially in the case of

LGBTQ youth), longstanding family conflicts, abuse and neglect, early trauma, lack of adequate education, foster care involvement (California Senate Democrats, 2017;

Fernandes- Alcantara, 2018; Morton et al., 2017; Whitbeck et al., 2016; Youth.gov., n.d.a) as causes of housing instability. For youth experiencing houselessness, trauma is abundant, both before houselessness and during. Systemic review and metanalysis of the causes of “youth homelessness” worldwide reveal that trauma is both a cause and a consequence of houselessness (Embleton et al., 2016). Lack of employment does not seem to be correlated, as many young people who are experiencing housing instability report working, but their incomes do not allow them to escape the cycle of poverty

(Morton et al., 2017). This points to lack of wage growth and overall worker disenfranchisement and an unsustainable housing market as root causes.

The issue of “youth homelessness” has long been a policy concern, but the way in which we speak about the problem has shifted over time. There are contradictory underlying assumptions about “youth homelessness.” At times, the problem has been cast in romanticized portraits of the “rebel youth,” “punk,” as “defiant youth” making a choice about living in the streets/ running away (Vigil, 2003). Such analysis paid little to no attention to power differentials, economic and welfare policies that have created underclasses of people, and systems, such as the Juvenile and Child Welfare, that have failed youth. Mythologies of “youth gangs” and “street kids” have colored public discussion in both popular media and research. This is then in contrast to discourse that

31 completely strips youth and individuals experiencing houselessness of their agency and sees them as victims (Parsell & Parsell, 2012) of either cruel and broken families or of socio-political state failures. In both cases, the nuance and complexity of the problem is lost. Urban street youth and street gangs have been of special interest to researchers

(Vigil, 2003), highlighting the underlying racial component of this work. While race and immigration status in both rural and urban settings are important factors, and IBPA tells us that we must take these into account, culture or race are not the causes of youth experiencing houselessness.

“Youth homelessness” in America is seen as a child welfare problem. Jimenez et al., (2014) chronicle the history, development, and evolution of the child welfare regime in the United States, noting the emergence of the concept of “parens patiae, which establishes the state as the ultimate parent for children lacking parental oversight” (p

354). Bills, such as SB-918 are still working under the framework and the historic context that ultimately the State, rather than kinship ties or communities, is the guardian of all young people lacking oversight. Paternalism, rather than partnership, has been at the heart of most child welfare public policy in most western countries (Calder, 1995).

This type of paternalism is why the voices of youth is often lacking in policy arenas.

That youth are vulnerable to risk and harm and the corrective reflex to want to protect them may stem from good intentions, but to see youth as only vulnerable and lacking the autonomy, agency, and capacity to be full participants in their own lives is dangerous and counter the principles of intersectionality.

Policy addressing the problem of youth experiencing houselessness need to strike the balance of recognizing the tremendous hardships youth can find themselves in

32 and also recognizing their agency. Rather than assuming a position of paternalism, partnering to create opportunities for youth to thrive should be a core tenant of youth centered policy.

It can be helpful to compare the child welfare model with the international children’s rights model (Convention on the Rights of the Child, approved on November

20, 1989). The United States is the only UN member that is not party to the treaty.

Article 12 of the Convention states:

Article 12 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

In this model, children and youth are not merely passive objects in need of State or parental control, but individuals with inherent rights, including the capacity to make decisions. Policy based on this framework would have to include the voices of youth and be implemented based on the services they identify they need.

Looking specifically at the process and final product of SB-918, we see positive forward developments in this regard. The Senate and Assembly Committees on Human

Services Joint Informational Hearing called “California's Homeless Youth: Averting

Long-Term Crisis” (2017), which gathered prior to the introduction of SB-918, brought together a wide network of stakeholders, including two diverse young people who had formerly experienced houselessness and a peer mentor. The powerful testimonies provided by the young people were given both the time and respect to be weighed next

33 to the “expert” testimony of people working in the field of houselessness.

The guiding principles of IBPA would tell us that at least in the initial phases of this policy process, the people most impacted were included in the discussion.

Furthermore, the “evidence” presented at this hearing including qualitative and field based participatory research, including Morton et al. (2017). Shahera Hyatt, the Director of California Homeless Youth Project, was at the hearing. Their research and policy initiative have consistently used participatory and intersectionality-informed tenants to seek policy solutions for youth experiencing houselessness, including a project where they “employed 40 homeless or formerly homeless young people interviewing over 200 of their peers around the state and conducted focus groups of homeless youth in several cities” (2018, para 1).

Looking at the language of the SB-918 itself, the bill does not pathologize or blame young people when discussing the problem of youth houselessness. While it recognizes the higher rates of substance use in this cohort, it does not draw a conclusion that substance use is the cause of houselessness in this group. The bill also mandates low-barrier services and a concerted coordinated effort between existing agencies and state systems. From an IBPA Framework, this bill as written and conceived, is making an effort to recognize the role of systems and institutions in both the problem and the solution of youth experiencing houselessness.

Descriptive IBPA Question 5

What are the current policy responses to the ‘problem’? • What are the current policy responses trying to achieve? • Do current policies focus on target groups? If so, are they seen as homogenous or heterogeneous?

The current policy response being reviewed in this paper is SB-918 Homeless

34 Youth Act of 2018. Prior to the passage of this State Bill, California had made some headways in addressing the larger houselessness issue with the Emergency Housing and

Assistance Program, Housing First, and the Homeless Coordinating and Financing

Council, but with no clear focus on unaccompanied youth. There were some homeless youth emergency service pilot projects, notably LA County Coordinated Entry System for Youth (Youth CES, 2018), but with no state-wide mandate for these services. SB

850 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 48, Statutes of 2018) had established block grants for homelessness issues (5% of which needed to go to youth specific services). Prior to that, SB 1380 (Mitchell, Chapter 847, Statutes of 2016) established the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (Council) to oversee, facilitate, and evaluate all services related to homelessness in the state.

California’s SB 918 Homeless Youth Act of 2018, Basic Facts

SB 918 was introduced on January 22, 2018 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San

Francisco) to directly address the issue of youth experiencing houselessness in the state.

The bill as passed, explicitly states: “...setting specific, measurable goals aimed at preventing and ending homelessness among youth in the state and defining outcome measures and gathering data related to those goals.”

The bill, as it was originally introduced, wanted to establish an Office of

Homeless Youth that could track, report, and evaluate services. It was also asking for

$60 million dollars in grants from cannabis tax and other funds to provide direct services, such as rental assistance, substance abuse and mental health services, and culturally sensitive care that met the needs of LGBT youth and other vulnerable groups.

The bill was signed on September 27th, 2018 by Governor Brown after some major

35 revisions. The principal coauthor of the bill is Assemblywoman Blanca E. Rubio, 48th

Assembly District, and it is supported by a broad coalition of partner organizations. The bill would require Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (Council) to take on responsibilities specific to addressing the issue, including setting measurable goals, collecting data, and coordinating care in order to prevent and “end homelessness” in this population; however, the $60 million dollars was not set aside (Wiener, 2018). Instead, services will be funded through other mechanisms (jbaforyouth.org, 2018), with a substantially smaller allocation ($25 million) from the state budget.

There is no funding mechanism in SB 918, which is one of the biggest criticism one can make for why the bill does not have the adequate resources to meet its goals.

However, the CA 2018-19 budget did the following: allocate “$500 million to one-time

Homeless Emergency Aid block grants” from which at least 5% needs to address youth homelessness - nearly triple what was previously being allocated to houseless youth services, and $10 million to support domestic violence shelter services and an additional

$1 million to support homeless youth shelters through the Office of Emergency Services

(2018-19 State Budget). SB 918 essentially creates a mandate for data collection, coordination, and evaluation of these services. This mean that each term, stakeholders must make sure that homeless youth specific services continue to be funded in the budget, which makes the funding availability vulnerable to the economic well-being of the state and at risk of budget cuts.

Other deliverables from this policy include: tasking the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (19 members- including people with lived experience and representatives from service agencies) with oversight and duties related to this bill,

36 mandating partnerships with other agencies towards common goal of ending youth homelessness, mandating systems integration to increase efficiency and effectiveness, tasking the Council to make policy and procedural recommendations strategies to fight youth homelessness in small communities and rural area, mandating statewide data collection. It also has language specific to youth currently or formerly involved in the child welfare system or the juvenile justice system to be accounted for and prioritized. It has language that discusses the specific needs of homeless minors who may have experienced maltreatment and/or are victims of Intimate Partner Violence or Domestic

Violence. It mandates reports to legislative bodies on the progress made on this issue and requires accountability in meeting these goals.

The goals set out in the bill are overarching and ambitious. However, whether the bill can meet its goals will be determined by how the Council implements its mandates and the people who are involved in the process. There is no mention of using trauma-informed or evidence-based practices in developing programs at the county level; however, using “best-practices” is mentioned.

SB-918 is a major step forward in terms of how we define and who we count in youth experiencing houselessness. The legislation used a broad and inclusive definition that ultimately helps with supporting a larger group of people than simply unsheltered

“street youth.” SB-918 states: “Runaway and homeless youth are young people 12 to 24 years of age, inclusive, who have the least access to essential opportunities and supports...” includes “unaccompanied youth who are pregnant or parenting.” This is a broader definition that the previously discussed HUD PIT counts.

More importantly, the bill specifically names those most impacted by the crisis,

37 such as systems youth and LGBT youth. However, counties are designing their own programs. While the bill recognizes disproportionality, it does not outline how counties should respond to this problem, nor does it directly implicate systemic oppression as a root cause. LGBT youth are lumped into one category, even though the needs of transgender youth of color, for example, may be unique and different from white gay or lesbian peers.

From an IBPA Framework, the policy does acknowledge both social determinants of health and positionality, but does not, in an explicit way, correct for historic and institutional issues of power and privilege. While the framers of this bill may have been aware of intersectionality and its role in policy, as evidenced by process and proceedings, as well as the statements made by Senator Scott Wiener (California

Senate Democrats, 2017; 2018), the bill is written in very general terms, which can leave it up to counties and cities to determine how to operationalize and implement services that can best meet the needs of youth. This is both a positive and negative. On the one hand, it builds on existing structures rather than create new bureaucracies and allows for each community to determine their own needs. It also relies on the expertise of the people already doing the work around this issue; however, on the other hand, this means broken systems are not overhauled.

There is a great deal of implicit bias and systemic racism ingrained in service delivery systems in homelessness services (LAHSA, 2018). A more adequate policy response would provide guidelines for training service delivery staff on implicit bias and demand that agencies keep track of how people are being served and who is most adversely impacted by lack of care.

38 Transformative IBPA Question 6

What inequities actually exist in relation to the problem? • Which are the important intersecting social locations and systems? For example, how do ‘race’, ethnicity, class, sexuality and other social locations and systems of inequality (racism, colonialism, classism, heterosexism) interact in relation to this policy problem?

From an IBPA lens, the issue of youth experiencing houselessness is as a mechanism of systemic oppression, informed by racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and other forms of discrimination (Adams et al., 2013). This is evidenced by the overrepresentation of marginalized groups in the data. Social location and intersecting identities compound the impact of houselessness and housing instability and creates additional barriers to accessing services.

Goldrick-Rab, Richardson, & Hernandez, (2017) report that “in LACCD there were substantially increased rates of housing insecurity for students who are African

American (74 percent) or American Indian (85 percent)” (p. 7), which is also reflected in the national studies where “African American youth were especially overrepresented, with an 83% increased risk of having experienced homelessness over youth of other races” (Morton, et al., 2017, p 12). As the study notes, this overrepresentation mirrors disparities in health, wealth, and employment and education opportunities in other areas of life. In the same study, researchers found that Hispanic youth also had a 33% higher risk of reporting homelessness. Whitbeck et al., 2016, conducted a study on “street youth” and found “Two-fifths of the sample (41.1%) identified as Black or African

American” (p. 2).

Systemic oppression needs to be accounted for when looking at policy solutions

(Hankivsky et al., 2014) in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and

39 meaningfully address a social issue. Youth experiencing houselessness is closely related to other racial equity social issues, such as the school-to-prison pipeline, higher expulsion rates of people of color from schools, disproportionality in the juvenile system, as well as the overrepresentation of People of Color (POC) in foster care and child welfare systems. The criminalization of homelessness further victimizes youth who are experiencing houselessness by increasing law enforcement involvement (Hyatt

& Reed, 2015). In turn, those already criminalized become houseless. Incarceration and houselessness is a pernicious revolving door. Nearly 78% of youth experiencing houselessness have at least one prior interaction with law enforcement, 62% had been arrested at least once, and nearly 44% had been in a juvenile detention centers (as cited in Pilnik, 2016).

A highly cited national study found that over 40% of homeless youth identify as

LGBT (Durso & Gates, 2012). Morton et al. (2017) found that LGBT youth had a

“120% higher risk of reporting homelessness” (p. 12). Keuroghlian et al (2014) cite federal policy agendas that have recognized the disproportionality of representation of this population in the homelessness count. In a Senate and Assembly Committees on

Human Services Joint Informational Hearing on California's Homeless Youth: Averting

Long- Term Crisis, experts in the field testified that LGBT homeless youth experience discrimination on the basis of their class and housing instability in LGBT spaces and then experience discrimination on the basis of their sexuality and gender in homelessness services, creating an unsafe and unwelcome environment for them that further marginalizes and victimizes them everywhere (California Senate Democrats,

2017). LGBT homeless youth are at greater risk of developing mental health issues,

40 report higher instances of survival sex and sexual exploitation, and are at greater risk of violent victimization (Keuroghlian et al., 2014).

All national and California reports show that youth experiencing houselessness are coping with other issues and intersecting identities that put them at greater risk, such as disability, mental illness, substance use disorders, repeated exposure to trauma, involvement in foster care, law enforcement contact, and being parents at an early age

(California Senate Democrats, 2017; Fernandes-Alcantara, 2018; Morton et al., 2017;

Whitbeck et al., 2016).

When considering policy solutions from IBPA framework, adequately accounting for these disparities and meaningfully addressing them by building in mechanisms to combat systemic oppression is the first step. Unfortunately, SB-918 falls short of doing this. As previously noted, while specific target groups are mentioned in the bill, implementation falls to local jurisdictions. Many rural areas either lack the expertise, lack existing infrastructure, or lack willingness to do systemic changes that would be necessary to shift the aforementioned disparities. As mentioned, the disproportionality is tied to other social issues. Efforts to address youth experiencing houselessness must be done in concert with other social justice work of dismantling criminalization of POC, trans and gender expanding youth, and providing trauma- informed care to youth who end up in the system due to family breakdown.

Transformative IBPA Question 7 (modified)

Where and how can interventions be made to improve the policy? • At what level or combination of levels (e.g., micro, meso, macro) can interventions be made?

The original SB-918 (California Legislative Information, 2018) as proposed by

41 Senator Scott Wiener had proposed $60 million dollar in grants from the state cannabis tax to be dedicated to youth homelessness services. It included provisions for rental assistance, substance use prevention, mental and physical health care, educational and employment services, as well as specifically called for culturally sensitive care to groups that have high rates of houselessness, including LGBTQ. Unfortunately, the bill passed without a specific funding attached to it. Resource allocation and redistribution of good and services is one of the ways we can look at a bill from an IBPA Framework.

The bill does not directly engage in such equity related actions. If we see another economic downturn similar to 2008 crisis, the bill could lose all of its meaning.

The following IBPA Framework aligned interventions can be made based on data collected from various policy recommendations and studies cited in this paper

(specifically Morton et al., 2017):

Macro-Intervention. 1) A continuous funding mechanism, such as the cannabis tax, must be incorporated into future youth houselessness policy to prevent the bill’s implementation from being subject to budget battles in Sacramento. 2)

Unaccompanied youth with little contact with families should have a path to legal independence and the support needed in the form of capacity building so they can live independently 3) Comprehensive reproductive health services that are based on reproductive justice frameworks must be provided to youth experiencing houselessness in non-traditional settings 4) Stakeholders, political actors, and service providers must challenge current economic conditions and housing markets that are keeping people in poverty and leaving them scrambling to gain access to scarce resources 5) Social Workers must continue to advocate for greater

42 social safety nets and a more equitable economic system 6) Media campaigns should help reduce the stigma of houselessness and increase the visibility of survivors and depict positive representations of youth who are currently struggling 7) Multiply-marginalized youth should be engaged as full partners in program development and policy process at all levels, including inception, implementation, and evaluation of programs.

Mezzo-Interventions. 1) A state-wide entity or office of Youth Houselessness should be created to bring together stakeholders and diverse communities, especially historically marginalized and disenfranchised communities. This entity should regularly hold public meetings to exchange knowledge about strategies to tackle youth houselessness in local communities and help create stronger networks of resource sharing and interdependence 2) Competitive grant proposals for funding for youth specific services must include solutions to closing health gaps and disparities in youth experiencing houselessness.

Micro-Interventions. 1) All staff working in service agencies and shelters must to be trained in trauma-informed care, LGBTQ inclusion, and implicit bias 2)

Programs should utilize peer-mentors, houseless youth navigators, and employ recently housed youth to be the first point of contact in outreach and shelters to improve outcomes, create opportunities, and build on resiliency 3) programs should be focused on strengths, protective factors, and resilience rather than youth deficiencies.

43 Conclusion

There are numerous reasons to celebrate the passage of SB 918 Homeless

Youth Act of 2018 as a major step forward in addressing the crisis of youth experiencing houselessness in California. It is a well-intentioned policy intervention that creates a state-wide mandate for the collection of data, the coordination of services, measurable evaluation of reducing and ultimately ending youth experiencing houselessness. It also correctly identifies target populations in the youth cohort that are experiencing houselessness at an alarming rate greater than their peers. For these reasons, SB 918 is a positive development.

Nevertheless, due to lack of specifically attached funding mechanism, and a failure to mandate that local counties address systemic oppression, from an IBPA

Framework, we cannot conclude that SB 918 alone will solve the issue of youth experiencing houselessness. Of note is the absence of policy language mandating evidence-based, youth-centered, trauma informed, LGBTQ affirming, services and/or provisions for the training and capacity building of those providing services on the ground on implicit bias. Since this policy is in its infancy, it is up to advocates and stakeholders to make sure the policy is implemented in a way that aligns with tenants of intersectionality. Program development on every level

(micro, mezzo, macro) should account for historic and current systems of oppression, structural disadvantage, social determinants of health, intergenerational trauma on communities and individual persons, addresses over- representation of multiply-marginalized groups impacted by various social issues, acknowledge and tackle -isms (racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia,

44 ableism, and other forms of discrimination). To truly meet the intent and goals of

SB-918, implicit bias and stigma, which are compounding the impact of houselessness and creating additional barriers to accessing services, should be taken seriously at every level of evaluation.

Researchers and policy makers in this field must continue to ask if there is adequate resource allocation to addressing the issue of houselessness and what funding streams can be diverted to meet the growing demands of housing in the state. Most importantly, the inclusion of stakeholders with lived experience must be built in at every level, including the evaluation mechanisms of this policy.

As previously noted, overrepresentation of multiply-marginalized youth experiencing houselessness mirrors disparities in health, wealth, employment and education in other areas of life. Activism, research, policy work, and clinical care on the issue of youth experiencing houselessness must be a concerted effort with movements that challenge mass incarceration, embrace environmental and racial justice, and advance immigration rights.

Limitations

As a practice in policy analysis, this paper had several limitations. First, stakeholders, including policy makers, program directors, and formerly houseless individuals involved in the process of passing SB 918 should have been interviewed as the main sources of data to evaluate SB 918 from a true intersectional lens. Future IBPA investigations could add to this work by combining available date with qualitative interviews and narratives of youth who

45 participated in the process of passing and then implementing SB 918. Secondly, this investigation omitted many of the transformative questions included in the full

IBPA Framework. Due to the fact that SB 918 has not yet been fully implemented and its evaluation is speculative, and also as a consequence of the narrow scope of this graduate project, many of the important IBPA questions were selectively omitted. Future researchers might want to look at this policy in five years from an

IBPA Framework to have a clearer picture of its impact. Although Hankivsky et al.,

2014 stress that IBPA questions do not have to be answered in full or in order and can be modified to meet the needs of the analysis and issue, fidelity to the model could have provided a more through and robust transformative inquiry. Lastly, this paper overemphasized the “problem” of youth houselessness with little to no attention to the wealth and depth of strength and resilience found in youth experiencing houselessness. Youth who survive unsurmountable challenges have tremendous power and potential that should be highlighted and celebrated.

Implications

While policy alone cannot transform society and dismantle deeply engrained systems of inequity, it can be a location of resistance for people formerly disenfranchised from power and privilege. As discussed extensively in this paper, existing policy toolkits can have the effect of perpetuating rather than challenging oppression. It is therefore critical that new and innovative methodologies, such as

IBPA are more widely used. “Arguably, intersectionality can significantly advance the operationalization of equity in public policy” (Hankivsky, 2012, p. 7). Social

Workers have a professional mandate to engage with policy (NASW, 2017). IBPA

46 Framework provides an opportunity to generate knowledge from an anti- oppressive liberatory process and this investigation shows its potential.

bell hooks (1991) in her seminal piece “Theory as Liberatory Practice” writes:

Let me begin by saying that I came to theory because I was hurting-the pain within me was so intense that I could not go on living. I came to theory desperate, wanting to comprehend-to grasp what was happening around and within me. Most importantly, I wanted to make the hurt go away. I saw in theory then a location for healing (p. 1).

This investigation also had a reflexive purpose. As noted early on in this paper, policies, laws, legislations have historically marginalized people like this writer.

This investigation came about from the researcher’s own “subjectivity,” in part to reclaim epistemic credibility as someone with lived experience. The act of engaging in this inquiry was to partake in methods of understanding the world that can feel more liberatory. As Brown & Strega (2015), in their collection

Research As Resistance cite “cognitive justice is essential requirement for social justice (p. 2), which the authors note requires different forms of generating knowledge. It was the hope of this investigation that by bringing alternative voices to policy analysis and conducting work from the heart as much as the head, we could model the more equitable world we hope to create as social workers.

47 References

2018-19 State Budget Invests in Reserves and an Array of Vital Services, Sets

Course for Future Advances (Rep.). (2018, June 27). Retrieved

https://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/First-Look_2018-19_Final-

Budget-Agreement_06.27.2018.pdf

About the California Homeless Youth Project. (2018). About the California

Homeless Youth Project. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from

http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/about.html

Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W., Castañeda, C.R., Hackman, H., Peters, M.L., Ximena,

Z. (2013) Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, Third Edition Routledge.

and Transgender Youth Who Are Homeless. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 66-72.

Angelova, L. (2010). Phenomenology of home (published dissertation). University of

South Florida. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1562/

April). Administration For Children And Families Family And Youth

Services Bureau Street Outreach Program Data Collection Final Report

(Rep.). Retrieved

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/fysb/data_collection_study_final_report

Au, N., & Hyat, S. (2017, April). Resources Supporting Homeless Students at

Belcher, J. R., & Deforge, B. R. (2012). Social Stigma and Homelessness: The

Limits of Social Change. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social

Environment, 22(8), 929-946. doi:10.1080/10911359.2012.707941

48 Brown, L. A., & Strega, S. (2015). Research as resistance: Revisiting critical,

indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed.). Toronto: Canadian

Scholars' Press.

Cabales, V. (2018, June 27). What the data reveals about the homeless in

California. Retrieved September 30, 2018, from

https://calmatters.org/articles/homeless-in- california-what-the-data-

reveals/

Calder, M. C. (1995). Child Protection: Balancing Paternalism and Partnership. The

British Journal of Social Work, 25(6), 749-766.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a056239

California Coalition for Youth. (2018, February 01a). Current Policy Platform.

Retrieved October 14, 2018, from http://calyouth.org/advocacy-

policy/current-policy- platform/

California Coalition for Youth. (2018, January 8b). A Call to Action: End and

Prevent Youth Homelessness in California. Retrieved October 14, 2018,

from http://calyouth.org/a-call-to-action-end-and-prevent-youth-

homelessness-in- california/

California Legislative Information. (2018). Compare Versions. Retrieved October

13, 2018, from

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_i

d=20 1720180SB918&cversion=20170SB91899INT

California SB918. (2018, August 21). Retrieved March 25, 2019, from

https://trackbill.com/bill/california-senate-bill-918-homeless-youth-act-of-

49 2018/1533418/

California Senate Democrats (Producer). (2017, October 10). Informational

Hearing: California’s Homeless Youth: Averting Long-Term Crisis [Video

file]. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5166&v=cRo1U05WX9s

California Senate Democrats (Producer). (2018, January 23). [Video file]. Retrieved

October 14, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlD4NTudHgM

California State Senate Democratic Caucus. (2018, January 23). Senator Scott

Wiener and Assemblywoman Blanca E. Rubio Introduce Bill to Stem

Rising Rates of Youth Homelessness. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from

https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20180123-senator-scott-wiener-and-

assemblywoman-blanca-e-rubio-introduce-bill-stem-rising-rates

California’s Public Universities and Colleges (Rep.). Retrieved October 14,

2018, from California Homeless Youth Project website:

http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/docs/pdf/CollegeSupportsReportP

DF4-27- 17.pdf

Charlton, J. I. (2011). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and

empowerment. Brantford, Ont.: W. Ross MacDonald School Resource

Services Library.

Crenshaw, K. (n.d.). A primer Intersectionality. Retrieved October 13, 2018,

from

http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Intersectionality%20primer%

20-

50 Crenshaw, Kimberle (1989) "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and

Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine,

Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics," University of Chicago Legal

Forum: Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at:

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology,

28(2), 115-138. doi:10.1080/02691728.2013.782585

Durso, L.E., & Gates, G.J. (2012). Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National

Survey of Service Providers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and

Transgender Youth who are Homeless or At Risk of Becoming Homeless.

Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette

Fund.

Easthope, H. (2004). A place called home. Housing, Theory and Society, 21(3),

128-138.

Embleton, L., Lee, H., Gunn, J., Ayuku, D., & Braitstein, P. (2016). Causes of

Child and Youth Homelessness in Developed and Developing Countries:

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(5), 435-

444.

Farrugia, D. (2011b). The symbolic burden of homelessness: Towards a theory

of youth homelessness as embodied subjectivity. Journal of

Sociology, 47(1), 71-87.

Farrugia, D., & Gerrard, J. (2016). Academic Knowledge and Contemporary

Poverty: The Politics of Homelessness Research. Sociology, 50(2), 267-

51 284.

Farrugia, David. (2011a). Youth Homelessness and Individualised

Subjectivity. Journal of Youth Studies,14(7), 761-775.

Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2018, April 26). Runaway and Homeless Youth:

Demographics and Programs (Rep. No. RL33785). Retrieved October 14,

2018, from Congressional Research Service website:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33785.pdf

Fessler, P. (2017, December 06). Homeless Population Rises, Driven By West

Coast Affordable-Housing Crisis. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/06/568605069/homeless-population-rises-

driven-by- west-coast-affordable-housing-crisis

Foster, L. K., & Bernstein, N. (2008). Voices From the Street: A Survey of

Homeless Youth by Their Peers (United States, California Research Bureau).

Sacramento, CA: California State Library. Retrieved March 23, 2019, from

https://www.issuelab.org/resource/voices-from-the-street-a-survey-of-

homeless-youth-by-their-peers.html

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings

1972-1977. Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press.

Goldrick-Rab, S., Richardson, J., & Hernandez, A. (2017). Los Angeles

Community College District District Report from Fall 2016 Survey of

Student Basic Needs(Rep.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from Wisconsin

HOPE Lab website: https://hope4college.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/09/Wisconsin-HOPE-Lab-LA- CC-District-Report-

52 Survey-Student-Needs.pdf

Hankivsky, O. (Ed.). (2012). An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis

Framework. Vancouver, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research and

Policy, Simon Fraser University

Hankivsky, O., Grace, D., Hunting, G., Giesbrecht, M., Fridkin, A., Rudrum, S.,

… Clark, N. (2014). An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework:

critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. International

Journal for Equity in Health, 13, 119. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-

0119-x

Heineman,, T. V. (2010). Relationships Beget Relationships: Why Understanding

Attachment Theory is Crucial to Program Design for Homeless Youth

(Publication). Sacramento, CA: CA Research Bureau.

Henry, M., Watt, R., Rosenthal, L., Shivji, A., & Abt Associates. (2017). The

2017 annual homeless assessment report (AHAR) to congress (Rep.). doi:

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5639/2017-ahar-part-1-pit-

estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us/ hooks, bell (1991) "Theory as Liberatory Practice," Yale Journal of Law &

Feminism: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol4/iss1/2

How LA County's Youth CES is Preventing the Next Generation of Homelessness.

(2018, November 27). Retrieved March 26, 2019, from

https://www.211la.org/how-la-countys-youth-ces-preventing-next-generation-

homelessness

53 Hyatt, S., & Reed, J. (2015, September). Adding Insult to Injury: The

Criminalization of Homelessness and Its Effects on Youth (Rep.). Retrieved

October 14, 2018, from CA Homeless Youth Project website:

http://cahomelessyouth.library.ca.gov/docs/pdf/CriminalizationOfYouthHom

elessn ess.pdf

Jbaforyouth.org. (2018, June 27). Homeless Emergency Aid Program: 5%

Homeless Youth Set-Aside ($25 million). Retrieved October 13, 2018,

from http://www.jbaforyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FAQ-7-

16-18.pdf

Jimenez, J. A., Pasztor, E. M., Chambers, R. M., & Fujii, C. P. (2014). Social

policy and social change: Toward the creation of social and economic

justice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Kanenberg, H. (2013). Feminist Policy Analysis: Expanding Traditional Social

Work Methods. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33(2), 129-142.

doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.772935

Karger, H., & Stoesz, D. (2008). Social welfare policy research: A framework for

policy analysis. In American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach (5th

ed., pp. 25-33). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Keuroghlian, A., Shtasel, D., Bassuk, E., Barbarin, Oscar A., & Smyth, Larry.

(2014). Out on the Street: A Public Health and Policy Agenda for

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth Who Are Homeless.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 66-72.

LAHSA. (2018). Report And Recommendations Of The Ad Hoc Committee On

54 Black People Experiencing Homelessness (Rep.). Los Angeles Homeless

Services Authority (LAHSA).

Mcphail, B. A. (2003). A Feminist Policy Analysis Framework. The Social

Policy Journal, 2(2-3), 39-61. doi:10.1300/j185v02n02_04

Morton, M.H., Dworsky, A., & Samuels, G.M. (2017). Missed opportunities:

Youth homelessness in America. National estimates. Chicago, IL: Chapin

Hall at the University of Chicago.

National Association of Social Workers. (2017). Code of Ethics. Retrieved

March 24, 2018, from

https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-

Ethics-English

Out on the Street: A Public Health and Policy Agenda for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Parsell, C., & Parsell, M. (2012). Homelessness as a Choice. Housing, Theory and

Society, 29(4), 420-434. doi:10.1080/14036096.2012.667834

Pilnik, L. (2016, June). Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice: Opportunities for

Collaboration and Impact (Issue brief No. 1). Retrieved March 26, 2019, from

Coalition for Juvenile Justice website:

http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-

files/policy%20brief_FINAL.compressed.pdf

Poe, B. (2017, December). Suicide and Homelessness: Data trends in suicide and

mental health among homeless populations (Rep.). Retrieved March 23, 2019,

from National Health Care for the Homeless Council website: :

http://www.nhchc.org/suicide

55 Rabinow, Paul (editor) (1991) The Foulcault Reader: An introduction to Foulcault’s

thought, London, Penguin.

Rogers, A. T. (2013). Human behavior in the social environment (New directions in

social work) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Rothenberg, P. S., & Mayhew, K. S. (2014). Race, class, and gender in the

United States: An integrated study (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

SB 918 Fact Sheet. (2018, March 7). Retrieved September 29, 2018, from

http://www.jbaforyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SB-918-

Updated-fact- sheet-4.9.pdf

Somerville, P. (1992). Homelessness and the Meaning of Home:

Rooflessness or Rootlessness? International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, 16(4), 529-539. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

2427.1992.tb00194.x

Stanley, D. (2017). DON’T COUNT ON IT How the HUD Point-in-Time

Count Underestimates the Homelessness Crisis in America (Rep.).

doi:https://www.nlchp.org/documents/HUD-PIT-report2017

Tatnell, R., Kelada, L., Hasking, P., & Martin, G. (2013). Longitudinal Analysis of

Adolescent NSSI: The Role of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal

Factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(6), 885-896.

doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9837-6

Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities. (n.d.). People First Language.

Retrieved March 25, 2019, from http://www.tcdd.texas.gov/resources/people-

first-language/

56 Torjman, S. (2005). What is Policy? Ottawa: The Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989,

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, available at:

https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html [accessed 26 March 2019]

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2017). Criteria and

Benchmarks for Achieving the Goal of Ending Veteran Homelessness (Rep.).

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2017, January). Criteria and

Benchmarks for Achieving the Goal of Ending Youth Homelessness. Retrieved

October 13, 2018, from

https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Youth_Criteria_Bench

mark s_FINAL.pdf

Vigil, J. D. (2003). Urban Violence and Street Gangs. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 32(1), 225-242. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.09342

Wardhaugh, J. (1999). The Unaccommodated Woman: Home, Homelessness and

Identity. The Sociological Review., 47(1), 91-109.

Whitbeck, L., Lazoritz, M. W., Crawford, D., & Hautala, D. (2016).

Administration for Children and Families and Youth Services Bureau Street

Outreach Program: Data collection study final report. Washington, DC:

Administration on Children, Youth and Families (Rep.).

Wiener, S. (2018, September 27). SB 918. Retrieved September 30, 2018, from

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=2017201

80SB 918

Youth CES. How LA County's Youth CES is Preventing the Next Generation of

57 Homelessness. (2018, November 27). Retrieved March 26, 2019, from

https://www.211la.org/how-la-countys-youth-ces-preventing-next-

generation-homelessness

Youth.gov. (n.d.a). Family Conflict and Violence. Retrieved October 14, 2018,

from https://youth.gov/youth-topics/runaway-and-homeless-youth/family-

conflict-and- violence

Youth.gov. (n.d.b). Federal Definitions. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from

https://youth.gov/youth-topics/runaway-and-homeless-youth/federal-definitions

58 Appendix A

Diagram of Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory

Source: Rogers, A. T. (2013)

59 Appendix B Guiding principles of Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis

Source: Hankivsky et al., 2014

60 Appendix C Descriptive & transformative overarching questions of IBPA

Source: Hankivsky et al., 2014

61